Previously redacted documents presented in the Apple-Samsung case do not support Apple's claims that Samsung issued a 'copy-the-iPhone'-order to its designers. It's pretty damning. Apple has very selectively and actively deleted sections of internal Samsung documents and talks to make it seem as if Samsung's designers were ordered to copy the iPhone. With the unredacted, full documents without Apple's deletions in hand, a completely different picture emerges: Samsung's designers are told to be as different and creative as possible. There's no 'copy the iPhone'-order anywhere, as Apple claimed. Instead, it says this: "designers rightly must make their own designs with conviction and confidence; do not strive to do designs to please me (the president); instead make designs with faces that are creative and diverse." I guess my initial scepticism about the documents was not uncalled for. What do you know - lawyers twist and turn the truth. Shocker, huh?

I'm kind of surprised some people think lawyers spend their time finding the truth. It's a lawyers job to defend his client's interests.

It's not that bad if they make stuff up, let them, because stuff that isn't true is much easier to debunk than stuff that is.

You're not guilty until proven so beyond any reasonable doubt. If Apple's lawyers raised stuff that wasn't true or out of context it should be easy for Samsung's legal team to disprove it or at least raise some doubt.

To me is seemed Apple put in much more effort in to their case and had much better lawyers than Samsung did. Had Samsung done a better they could have raised enough doubt to win it.

While this might vary by country, in the US where this court case took place the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard only applies to criminal cases. Civil cases such as this one use the comparatively much more lax "preponderence of evidence" standard, which is a significantly lower bar to hit.